The Russiagate conspiracy theory

[Neven]

And here, Stephen F Cohen, says some things that it should be extremely difficult to disagree with (for instance, that both Russia and the US are to blame for the bad relations between them):

[AbruptSLR]

Logic from a reformed 'Russiagate Skeptic':

Title: "Why I’m No Longer a Russiagate Skeptic"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/20/confession-of-a-no-longer-russiagate-skeptic-219022

Extract: "Facts are piling up, and it’s getting harder to deny what’s staring us in the face.
...
When I wrote, back in February, that I was skeptical that President Donald Trump would ever be proved to have secretly colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election in his favor, I mistyped.

What I meant to write was that I wasn’t skeptical.

[SteveMDFP]

Logic from a reformed 'Russiagate Skeptic':

Title: "Why I’m No Longer a Russiagate Skeptic"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/20/confession-of-a-no-longer-russiagate-skeptic-219022

Extract: "Facts are piling up, and it’s getting harder to deny what’s staring us in the face.
...
When I wrote, back in February, that I was skeptical that President Donald Trump would ever be proved to have secretly colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election in his favor, I mistyped.

What I meant to write was that I wasn’t skeptical.

It's a nice summary.  It's true that there's sufficient evidence to conclude a quid pro quo was struck between Trump and the Kremlin.  We're all just waiting for the next set of indictments.

[Neven]

Come on, that guy never was a Russiagate skeptic! 

A Russiagate skeptic either thinks there was no collusion between Trump and the Russian government, or that the Russians didn't do any hacking, or that it doesn't warrant so much hysteria, and so on.

Thinking that it cannot be proven that Trump colluded with Russia doesn't make you a Russiagate skeptic. That's like me saying I'm no longer an 'Ice-free Arctic' skeptic, because I now believe it could happen before 2030.

Other than that a great summary of the narrative/propaganda, I agree. We must now all side with the oligarchs and neocons that hate Trump, or any other outsider they cannot control. Even though Trumpy has already done a lot of things for them.

I'm highly skeptical that any good can come of Russiagate. I'll change my mind if it leads to the impeachment of Trump, and he is replaced by a progressive or someone else who will do everything to fight concentrated wealth for the sake of the majority of American people.

[Neven]

Stephen Cohen again:

[Susan Anderson]

If you think TrumpPutin is your friend, you are very far astray.

And I am more than disgusted that Rachel Maddow is described as a warmonger. She's a superb reporter/detective and we need something to stand up to our warmongering president, who is in thrall to warmongering Putin. I would not be surprised, as a follow-on to the private "summit" to see Putin attack the Baltic states with impunity. That's closer to you than to me, so it should worry you.
--
Moving on, I just found this nice summary of the FISA 412 page heavily redacted application:

April Doss‏ @AprilFDoss

Alright folks, I've been holding off on wading into the Carter Page FISA discussion. But I realize that there are a relatively limited number of people who have had the opportunity to review Title I FISA applications on a regular basis. 1/
A lot of people are trying to make sense of legal documents & standards & a complicated law (FISA) that are unfamiliar to them. There's been some great commentary, including by @pwnallthethings, @DavidKris (check them out) and others, but there's also a lot of confusion. 2/
So in an effort to help demystify things, here's a really high-level explainer that attempts to be both accurate and simple - not always easy with a law as complicated as FISA is. I'm not trying to address all the details, just offering a few hopefully-helpful thoughts. 3/

First, Title I only permits surveillance of a U.S. person when there's probable cause to believe that the person is an agent of a foreign power. What the FBI put together in its submission was proof of PC. Remember, PC is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 4/
It's not supposed to be. A FISA app doesn't have to meet the standard for criminal conviction. The app is just supposed to let an independent arbiter - a federal judge - decide whether there's enough evidence for a court order to allow the government to investigate further. 5/
And that's exactly what the 412 pages of these applications (initial and 3 renewals) did. They laid out a detailed case before a judge explaining why there was preliminary and ongoing cause to believe there was enough evidence for the government to continue investigating. 6/
The 4 FISA apps explained the sources of info & potential bias. And oh btw, anytime there's a witness, source, or CI in any kind of case, there's always a chance of bias. Because human nature. Judges, DoJ, FBI, IC are all well-versed in assessing whether bias affects reliability. 7/
So the idea that DoJ, FBI, or FISC didn't know there could be bias in the info is factually inaccurate. And the idea they wouldn't've been able to assess the reliability of the info is: a) not true, and b) a red herring to detract from important facts showing probable cause. 8/
Let's pause for a side comment on FISC judges. All are federal judges from different parts of the country, appointed to the FISC for set terms. Please, for the sake of democracy, let's back away from distracting rhetoric about who appointed them. 9/
One of the most damaging, demoralizing, and dangerous impacts of the rhetoric around the Russia investigation has been the politicization of intelligence. Folks, national security is a nonpartisan issue. Intelligence officers do their work in an honorable, nonpartisan way. 10/
Same goes for federal judges. They're highly independent & tend to care more about legal principles than party affiliations. FISA approvals should be assessed on the merits of the decision, and these apps showed PC. We risk delegitimizing the judiciary by politicizing it. 11/
Remember: Foreign adversaries have no loyalty to a particular American political party. They will use any societal, economic, or political dynamic to their advantage to achieve their aims. Americans who believe adversaries are loyal to our internal parties are fooling themselves.12/
Anyone who's spinning this FISA story for partisan purposes is doing a disservice to our nation. The reason 4 judges signed off on the FISA apps? Because each one established a strong, detailed factual predicate that met the standard for probable cause.13/
So can we lay off the hyper-partisanship and stop with the conspiracy theories? There is no deep state. If you haven't read the docs yet, I urge you to. https://bit.ly/2JFFsI0  Look for explainers from people who have experience in how FISA and natsec work. 14/
And let's all remember that we still have 2018 elections to secure. Let's not make it easy to exploit our divisions. Instead, let's look to facts & law. Let's follow the investigations where they lead. And let's hold each other accountable for living up to our best ideals. 15/15
https://twitter.com/AprilFDoss/status/1021205398349598722

[gerontocrat]

Novichok and Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia poisoning fallout

They call it "collateral damage", don't they.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/24/novichok-victim-ill-within-15-minutes-says-partner-charlie-rowley

Novichok victim found substance disguised as perfume in sealed box
Charlie Rowley claims nerve agent that killed his partner was boxed and wrapped up

The British man poisoned with the nerve agent novichok has claimed the substance that killed his girlfriend and left him critically ill came in a bottle disguised as a legitimate perfume in a sealed box. Charlie Rowley claimed his partner, mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, fell ill within 15 minutes of spraying the bottle, which he said he had found, on to her wrists at his home in Amesbury, Wiltshire.

In his first interview since he was discharged from hospital, Rowley told ITV News: “I do have a memory of her spraying it on her wrists and rubbing them together. I guess that’s how she applied it and became ill. I guess how I got in contact with it is when I put the spray part to the bottle ... I ended up tipping some on my hands but I washed it off under the tap. It was an oily substance and I smelled it and it didn’t smell of perfume. It felt oily. I washed it off and I didn’t think anything of it. It all happened so quick. Within 15 minutes, Dawn said she had a headache. She asked me if I had any headache tablets. In that time she said she felt peculiar and needed to lie down in the bath. I went into the bathroom and found her in the bath, fully clothed, in a very ill state.”

Rowley said he had found a sealed box in a cellophane wrapper containing a perfume bottle some days before he and Sturgess fell ill, and had kept it at his home in Amesbury, eight miles north of Salisbury, before handing it to his partner of two years as a gift.

He said he was struggling to remember where he had originally found the item but was convinced it was legitimate, as it looked like it hadn’t been used, “Which made me think it was quite safe,” he said. Rowley also said it was a perfume that Sturgess recognised.

ps; The cops have said that they think they know who did it.

[Neven]

ps; The cops have said that they think they know who did it.

Yes, the Russian government, as there's no other possibility, right? If they say otherwise, there's a problem.

[Neven]

I would not be surprised, as a follow-on to the private "summit" to see Putin attack the Baltic states with impunity.

Susan, this makes no sense whatsoever, as Stephen Cohen explains in the last video I posted. Don't let fear be your guide.

[Neven]

I've been reading up some on the Skripal/Rowley/Sturgess-case. It gets more ridiculous by the day. Will we ever hear the truth, I wonder. Either way, the journalism is simply awful.

[Susan Anderson]

I would not be surprised, as a follow-on to the private "summit" to see Putin attack the Baltic states with impunity.

Susan, this makes no sense whatsoever, as Stephen Cohen explains in the last video I posted. Don't let fear be your guide.

Whatever I say appears to be diverted from being understood by pre-existing bias, including but not limited to cherrypicking. Certainly Putin will act with more impunity now, but perhaps the Baltic states were an excessive example.

Fear is not my guide. My desire is to see my country pull together and get rid of the monsters that are running things. It's a long difficult slog which is not helped by infighting, particularly the infighting of chaos promoters from the internet. I'll get back to this later, but it's a useful description of what is going on:
https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/34-years-ago-a-kgb-defector-described-america-today

The original is not long, but for those who won't check it out, here's an extract:

ideological subversion:

    “What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that in despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”

Bezmenov described this process as “a great brainwashing” which has four basic stages. The first stage is called “demoralization” which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.

[Neven]

Susan, it all seems a bit paranoid to me and an apt description of the Cold War conditioning that Americans have been subject to for many decades, and never really disappeared, as we can now see.

But even if true, the US itself has created the conditions for Russian success. Has the Soviet Union forced a consumerist culture upon Americans that make you feel hollow inside, that makes you addicted to one thing or the other to fill up the hole? Has Putin created the obesity epidemic, the opioid crisis, the lead in the water? More importantly, has Russia caused the financial bubbles and the bailing out of Wall Street, to the further detriment of not only workers and poor people, but now the middle class as well?

No, that's all the doing of a system of which the main goal is to further concentrate wealth, while at the same time exponentially increasing it. And this system is only made stronger by the thinking that created the article you posted. Because it's based on fear.

Never mind the conditioning the US has enforced on Russians since the 90s. I myself am a product of this conditioning and cultural imperialism. Talk about demoralization!

[Susan Anderson]

Thanks Neven for explaining a bit about where you're coming from. You make assumptions about Americans that do not apply to all of us, and no doubt the reverse is true. The escalation in my disillusionment began with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. I got blamed for Bush II - who horrified me - when traveling in England. Democrats are largely not corporatists, though we've had to adapt to reality. We're in a battle for survival.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375

To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialled is fascism – a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget “post-fascist” – what we are living with is pre-fascism.

It is easy to dismiss Donald Trump as an ignoramus, not least because he is. But he has an acute understanding of one thing: test marketing. He created himself in the gossip pages of the New York tabloids, where celebrity is manufactured by planting outrageous stories that you can later confirm or deny depending on how they go down. And he recreated himself in reality TV where the storylines can be adjusted according to the ratings. Put something out there, pull it back, adjust, go again.

Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.

One of the basic tools of fascism is the rigging of elections – we’ve seen that trialled in the election of Trump, in the Brexit referendum and (less successfully) in the French presidential elections. Another is the generation of tribal identities, the division of society into mutually exclusive polarities. Fascism does not need a majority – it typically comes to power with about 40 per cent support and then uses control and intimidation to consolidate that power. So it doesn’t matter if most people hate you, as long as your 40 per cent is fanatically committed. That’s been tested out too. And fascism of course needs a propaganda machine so effective that it creates for its followers a universe of “alternative facts” impervious to unwanted realities. Again, the testing for this is very far advanced.

But when you’ve done all this, there is a crucial next step, usually the trickiest of all. You have to undermine moral boundaries, inure people to the acceptance of acts of extreme cruelty. Like hounds, people have to be blooded. They have to be given the taste for savagery. Fascism does this by building up the sense of threat from a despised out-group. This allows the members of that group to be dehumanised. Once that has been achieved, you can gradually up the ante, working through the stages from breaking windows to extermination.

It is this next step that is being test-marketed now. It is being done in Italy by the far-right leader and minister for the interior Matteo Salvini. How would it go down if we turn away boatloads of refugees? Let’s do a screening of the rough-cut of registering all the Roma and see what buttons the audience will press. And it has been trialled by Trump: let’s see how my fans feel about crying babies in cages. ....

And the results are quite satisfactory. .... They went the whole swinish hog: even the brown babies are liars. Those sobs of anguish are typical of the manipulative behaviour of the strangers coming to infest us – should we not fear a race whose very infants can be so devious?

This is greatly encouraging for the pre-fascist agenda. The blooding process has begun within the democratic world. The muscles that the propaganda machines need for defending the indefensible are being toned up. Millions and millions of Europeans and Americans are learning to think the unthinkable. So what if those black people drown in the sea? So what if those brown toddlers are scarred for life? They have already, in their minds, crossed the boundaries of morality. They are, like Macbeth, “yet but young in deed”. But the tests will be refined, the results analysed, the methods perfected, the messages sharpened. And then the deeds can follow.

[Susan Anderson]

Here's a more humorous sideline:

[Susan Anderson]

By the way, Gorbachev is and was rather a hero, imho. And inasmuch as Reagan worked with him, that was a good thing. (Nixon started the EPA and opened a relationship with China.) Bush was a ways downhill, and his wars hurt everyone and left us in bad shape. Trump continues the downhill slide.

Sadly, Putin got Gorbachev out and installed Yeltsin, a much better puppet. http://www.gorby.ru/en/

EDIT: Should have said, "promoted" not "installed" Yeltsin. I'll look up my reference later.

[Hefaistos]

...
Sadly, Putin got Gorbachev out and installed Yeltsin, a much better puppet.

If Putin would have had a time machine, maybe he could have achieved that

Wikipedia:

Putin "...resigned with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel on 20 August 1991,[50] on the second day of the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt against the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.[51] Putin said: "As soon as the coup began, I immediately decided which side I was on", although he also noted that the choice was hard because he had spent the best part of his life with "the organs"."

[TerryM]

Susan
A look at Soviet and Russian history as witnessed through the eyes of a Moscow based professor. It's a long slow series of interviews with a former Soviet radical who misses the communist ideals as practiced once in the country of his birth.
An interesting snapshot.
Terry

[RealityCheck]

We're in a battle for survival.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375

To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialled is fascism – a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget “post-fascist” – what we are living with is pre-fascism.

... The muscles that the propaganda machines need for defending the indefensible are being toned up.

I think it is very tempting to believe in uni-directional 'progress': technological, social, economic, civilisational. Especially for those of us from the 'West' with our recent history of (relative) peace - by which I mean the absence of major war on the European or North American landmasses. But here's the problem as I see it: history is not linear but cyclical. The underlying causes of overt conflict remain fully alive and well in the human psyche. Humans and our societies remain vulnerable to manipulation by demagogues, who will exploit and inflame situations in pursuit of power and wealth (and in that order of priority). Fintain O'Toole's anslysis captures the risks quite well I think. In my opinion, we are witnessing the wheel of history turning over once more in this era. It will not be exactly the same as before. But the chief characteristics will remain the same, and potentially very ugly for humanity. The question is: how best to respond, and counteract these emerging forces in society? It will take widespread popular rejection of growing negative powers - something that is easy to say, but could very hard to do...

[Neven]

Susan
A look at Soviet and Russian history as witnessed through the eyes of a Moscow based professor. It's a long slow series of interviews with a former Soviet radical who misses the communist ideals as practiced once in the country of his birth.
An interesting snapshot.
Terry

Terry, are you referring to the series of interviews with Paul Jay and Alexandr Buzgalin? I think it could've been better, but I've enjoyed it a lot so far.

Here's the 11th instalment of 12, just out:

[Neven]

Still alive, still speaking truth:

[Neven]

What's the definition of fascism? Doesn't it have to do with the unholy marriage between the state and corporations? Did this start just now with Trump? Is it still fascism if corporations usurp the state instead of the other way around?

[Martin Gisser]

What's the definition of fascism? Doesn't it have to do with the unholy marriage between the state and corporations? Did this start just now with Trump? Is it still fascism if corporations usurp the state instead of the other way around?

Trumputin = Petrofascism

The last stand of the fossil fools.
Trump digs coal, Putin sells gas, industry wants too pollute and dig, etc. etc.
Here, one niche of corporations rules the swamp, the fossil fools, defending their bucks and co-alligators. Due to the ongoing energy revolution, this is a bit different to 20th century fascism, when energy was all fossil (e.g. Mussolini and coal).

It's about swamp diversity in the end. Trumputin is an evolutionary blockade, not just with respect to energy market and social evolution, or but also a dangerous obstacle in current planetary evolution. Here's the moral-philosolophical knackpoint of our century: What is bad for the carbon cycle is evil. You can no longer do philosophy or politics whithout accounting for this. Thus, Trumputin is evil, period.

[Susan Anderson]

What's the definition of fascism? Doesn't it have to do with the unholy marriage between the state and corporations? Did this start just now with Trump? Is it still fascism if corporations usurp the state instead of the other way around?

Here you go:

1 : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

[TerryM]

Susan
A look at Soviet and Russian history as witnessed through the eyes of a Moscow based professor. It's a long slow series of interviews with a former Soviet radical who misses the communist ideals as practiced once in the country of his birth.
An interesting snapshot.
Terry

Terry, are you referring to the series of interviews with Paul Jay and Alexandr Buzgalin? I think it could've been better, but I've enjoyed it a lot so far.

Here's the 11th instalment of 12, just out:

I had no idea that I'd forgotten the link until you mentioned it, so with apologies to all it is indeed the Paul Jay / Alexander Buzgalin interviews that I was referring to.


Try Neven's link to the eleventh interview and see if you don't come away having learned something new.
The segments are ~17 min. each and contain a full transcript for those who prefer a quick read over slow dialogue. I don't agree with many of Alexander's conclusions, but listening to someone who has lived and studied these issues from a Soviet, then RF perspective, can't be anything less than enlightening.


Thanks for providing a link to the interviews.
Terry

[Rob Dekker]

The Syrian volunteer rescue workers known as the White Helmets have become the target of an extraordinary disinformation campaign that positions them as an al-Qaida-linked terrorist organisation.

The Guardian has uncovered how this counter-narrative is propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government (which provides military support to the Syrian regime).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

[Rob Dekker]

Susan, it all seems a bit paranoid to me and an apt description of the Cold War conditioning that Americans have been subject to for many decades, and never really disappeared, as we can now see.

But even if true, the US itself has created the conditions for Russian success. Has the Soviet Union forced a consumerist culture upon Americans that make you feel hollow inside, that makes you addicted to one thing or the other to fill up the hole? Has Putin created the obesity epidemic, the opioid crisis, the lead in the water? More importantly, has Russia caused the financial bubbles and the bailing out of Wall Street, to the further detriment of not only workers and poor people, but now the middle class as well?

Neven, sometimes I'm really puzzled by your remarks.

Nobody says that Russia is to blame for American consumerism or obesity or the opioid crisis or lead in the water or the financial crisis or anything else you want to hang on this coatrack.

You seem to ignore the real problem that the international community has with Russia : Invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, invading Ukraine, the lies about MH17, the Skripal case, and meddling in the elections of many countries including the US to name a few. Not to mention the persistent right wing propaganda out of Russia that smears anyone who dares to oppose Russia's interests, no matter how malignant.

If such issues remain unaddressed, the entire international system of rules is up for grabs. The system that prevented major world wide conflicts since WWII.

[Hefaistos]

...
You seem to ignore the real problem that the international community has with Russia : Invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, invading Ukraine, the lies about MH17, the Skripal case, and meddling in the elections of many countries including the US to name a few. Not to mention the persistent right wing propaganda out of Russia that smears anyone who dares to oppose Russia's interests, no matter how malignant.

If such issues remain unaddressed, the entire international system of rules is up for grabs. The system that prevented major world wide conflicts since WWII.

Rob, you never fail to repeat your litany about Russia. We got it, you hate Russia.
Talking about international public law, and the "entire international system of rules":
What about Israel's illegal occupation of Golan heights, or the West bank, or east Jerusalem?
What about Kosovo, was it right of NATO to 'liberate' it from Serbia and create a new state there?
What about China's illegal annexation of Tibet? Or its illegal activities in the South Chinese Sea?

That international system of rules is constantly up for grabs, it's nothing sacrosanct there. It's a system of realpolitik.

[Neven]

I can't help but think that these gentlemen have a point:

[TerryM]

I seldom agree with Vice. That said, the interviewed express my thoughts to a "T".
Trump is wrong on almost every level, and I disagree with almost everything he does, says, or represents. WRT better relations with the world's second most powerful nuclear nation, he's a voice crying in the wilderness for a return to sanity.
It's not only a reasonable position, it's the only possible way to progress to a world where voluntary co-operation re. GHG emissions has any chance of becoming a reality.


Terry

[Rob Dekker]

I can't help but think that these gentlemen have a point:

Seriously ?
The only real "point" these "gentlemen" are making is the scaremongering that we are at the "brink of nuclear war" with Russia and that thus Trump is right and we should cooperate with them.

That's just wrong at many different levels. First of all, we are NOT at the brink of war with Russia. That's just Russian propaganda. Secondly, just because Russia has a large number of nuclear weapons should not make them immune to violations of international law.

If that's what you believe, then Cohen is your friend and you are giving in to rule-by-power rather than rule-by-law.

Is that how 21st century international politics should be conducted ?

[Rob Dekker]

What about Kosovo, was it right of NATO to 'liberate' it from Serbia and create a new state there?

I would have expected Neven to comment at least on that issue of what-about-ism.

[Neven]

I would have expected Neven to comment at least on that issue of what-about-ism.

I think that the point of the what-about-ism is that none of the other examples elicit as much outrage/hysteria as the ones having to do with Russia do.

As for NATO bombing Serbia with regard to Kosovo, it was too late, and it was wrong to bomb civilians. NATO should have bombed JNA tanks (Yugoslav Army) as soon as they tried to occupy more Croatian territory than was warranted, by their own argument (to protect the 10% Serb minority in Croatia). They definitely should have bombed Bosnian Serb troops shelling Sarajevo from the hills. And they should have bombed, like they initially promised they would, Mladic and his merry band of rapists and war criminals when they marched towards Srebrenica (they could do so because the Bosnian Muslims had retreated, based on those UN/NATO promises).

If they had done this right from the get-go, they would have prevented the genocides, because Serbians are essentially cowards when they don't have superior strength. Instead, the EU, UN and NATO let themselves be trolled by the Serbians for years, causing untold misery.

Who knows what the geopolitical reasons were for letting it all happen. If you had witnessed that war up close, you wouldn't be talking like you're talking now, Rob.

Just like the war in Yugoslavia, the current wave of Russophobia in the US, is fuelled by other interests, and not so much the things that Russians did or didn't do, in whatever context. Anyone participating in it is a tool of the powers that be, and the powers that be have only one goal in mind: further increasing and concentrating of wealth. To the detriment of everyone and everything.

[sidd]

G-2/forensicator/"Adam Carter" exposed thru sloppy tradecraft: DNC hack timestamp analysis challenged: Binney no longer believes G-2/forensicator evidence:

"After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”."

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

I would have expected Neven to comment at least on that issue of what-about-ism.

I think that the point of the what-about-ism is that none of the other examples elicit as much outrage/hysteria as the ones having to do with Russia do.

The situation Serbia created in Kosovo triggered enough outrage for NATO to act. We have not seen anything even close to that for anything Russia did.

As for NATO bombing Serbia with regard to Kosovo, it was too late, and it was wrong to bomb civilians. NATO should have bombed JNA tanks (Yugoslav Army) as soon as they tried to occupy more Croatian territory than was warranted, by their own argument (to protect the 10% Serb minority in Croatia). They definitely should have bombed Bosnian Serb troops shelling Sarajevo from the hills. And they should have bombed, like they initially promised they would, Mladic and his merry band of rapists and war criminals when they marched towards Srebrenica (they could do so because the Bosnian Muslims had retreated, based on those UN/NATO promises).

If they had done this right from the get-go, they would have prevented the genocides, because Serbians are essentially cowards when they don't have superior strength. Instead, the EU, UN and NATO let themselves be trolled by the Serbians for years, causing untold misery.

Would it have been better if UN/NATO would not have acted at all ?

Who knows what the geopolitical reasons were for letting it all happen. If you had witnessed that war up close, you wouldn't be talking like you're talking now, Rob.

I don't recall talking about the war in ex-Yugoslavia at all.
What do you mean when you say "you wouldn't be talking like you're talking now" ?

Just like the war in Yugoslavia, the current wave of Russophobia in the US, is fuelled by other interests, and not so much the things that Russians did or didn't do, in whatever context.

Neven, the whole concept of "Russophobia in the US" is Russian propaganda.
There is no "Russophobia" in the US or anywhere else. There is just genuine outrage over what Russia did (in Georgia, in Ukraine, with MH17, the Skripal case, interfering in elections, in Syria etc etc). And then there are many pro-Russians who want to shuv all that under the rug and call it "Russophobia".

[Neven]

There is just genuine outrage over what Russia did

Yes, and it's disproportional, it's being whipped up by parties with ulterior motives, and it's not going to lead to any good. It's all part of the vicious cycle since the Stone Age, planetary scale this time.

Again, if you had witnessed a war up close, how that stuff works, the events leading up to it, you wouldn't be talking like you are now.

[Rob Dekker]

G-2/forensicator/"Adam Carter" exposed thru sloppy tradecraft: DNC hack timestamp analysis challenged: Binney no longer believes G-2/forensicator evidence:

"After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”."

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links

sidd

Now that Mueller's team revealed in excruciating details exactly how the DNC and the DCCC was hacked by Russian Intelligence :
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

it is now not just pro-Kremlin G-2/"Adam Carter" who got egg on his face, but also Binney himself and his VIPS group :

Some former intelligence officials, from a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), backed up the claim. A group, including William Binney, a former technical director at the US National Security Agency (NSA), and former CIA officer Ray McGovern, were persuaded, without checking the file data, to say that the hacking was the work of insiders.

and

According to former NSA technical manager Tom Drake, “Ray’s determination to publish claims he wanted to believe without checking facts and discarding evidence he didn’t want to hear exactly reproduced the Iraq war intelligence failures which the VIPS group was formed to oppose”. He and other VIPS members refused to sign McGovern’s report. 

[Rob Dekker]

There is just genuine outrage over what Russia did

Yes, and it's disproportional, it's being whipped up by parties with ulterior motives, and it's not going to lead to any good. It's all part of the vicious cycle since the Stone Age, planetary scale this time.

Neven, you are on the record for claiming (correct in my assessment) that the Russian military shot down MH17 deliberately. And Russia annexed Crimea in the first European land-grab since Hitler annexed Sudetenland in WWII.

Even considering these two issues alone, since all we did was impose some sanctions, how can you still claim that the international response to Russian actions was "disproportional" ?

Again, if you had witnessed a war up close, how that stuff works, the events leading up to it, you wouldn't be talking like you are now.

Once again, I don't understand what you mean. Maybe I would understand better if you would address the questions in my previous post. For example, would it have been better if the UN/NATO would not have acted against Serbia in Kosovo ?

[Neven]

Even considering these two issues alone, since all we did was impose some sanctions, how can you still claim that the international response to Russian actions was "disproportional" ?

I'm talking about the outrage, the attention it gets in the media, the way people talk about it on social media. It's out of all proportion, and that's because people let themselves be whipped up in a frenzy. They're totally unaware of how they let their conditioning get triggered by propaganda. That is how wars get started, a minority exploiting the masses for their own interests.

For example, would it have been better if the UN/NATO would not have acted against Serbia in Kosovo ?

No, it would have been better if they had acted when the tanks rolled into Slovenia and Croatia. And preferably without bombing the Serbian civilian population. And when they finally decided to bomb, I don't think it was for humanitarian purposes. It was probably because they wanted to test their gear on a developed nation, or get rid of some old missiles, so they could buy new ones from their military-industrial complex buddies, or just to show Russia who's tough by bombing their Orthodox brothers which they had supported for centuries (otherwise Serbia wouldn't even exist today).

But I'm not sure, I had stopped following all that stupid shit by then, disillusioned as I was by what had happened in Croatia and Bosnia.

[Neven]

Kyle Kulinski on Noam Chomsky on Russiagate (and the outrage):



Another very strong point from Kulinski, besides all the other ones:

Does this mean that we shouldn't take any action in response to what's going on with Russia and their election interference? No, no, no. I would lead the charge. If I was a senator, I would lead the charge, I would immediately propose a cyber security bill, and I would immediately propose paper ballots. Why? Because that's how you try to protect against this kind of stuff happening again. Okay, so let's do that.

But, you'll notice something guys. Every single proponent of Russiagate that shrieks and yells and  screams and goes nuts and points the finger and scapegoats all day long, and they won't talk about anything but Russiagate and 'the attack on our democracy!', go ahead, you check how many of them talk about paper ballots all the time? How many of them talk about a cyber security bill all the time? They don't even talk about the f***ing solutions!

So, that's how you know this is all being used for political gain. It's cause they don't even talk about the solutions.

[Susan Anderson]

Another very strong point from Kulinski, besides all the other ones:

Does this mean that we shouldn't take any action in response to what's going on with Russia and their election interference? No, no, no. I would lead the charge. If I was a senator, I would lead the charge, I would immediately propose a cyber security bill, and I would immediately propose paper ballots. Why? Because that's how you try to protect against this kind of stuff happening again. Okay, so let's do that.

But, you'll notice something guys. Every single proponent of Russiagate that shrieks and yells and  screams and goes nuts and points the finger and scapegoats all day long, and they won't talk about anything but Russiagate and 'the attack on our democracy!', go ahead, you check how many of them talk about paper ballots all the time? How many of them talk about a cyber security bill all the time? They don't even talk about the f***ing solutions!

So, that's how you know this is all being used for political gain. It's cause they don't even talk about the solutions.

This is such nonsense.  The characterization is exaggerated almost beyond recognition. Tuning out the truth and pretending nothing else is going on is not helping.

There is too much trolling going on here, and some good people are buying. Don't be so gullible!

And please stop hating all the people who are working hard to get the facts straight. Our elections are being stolen. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[mostly_lurking]

good people are buying. Don't be so gullible!

And please stop hating all the people who are working hard to get the facts straight. Our elections are being stolen. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Nobody's stealing any elections, let's be truthful. If there was ANY serious worry about this then there all sides would be for paper ballots and voter ID like in most countries of the world (including the poorest 3rd world countries). All the noise about this is ONLY because Hillary lost.

[SteveMDFP]

I'm talking about the outrage, the attention it gets in the media, the way people talk about it on social media. It's out of all proportion, and that's because people let themselves be whipped up in a frenzy. 

The media hypes the importance of every story.
Social media is filled with outrage over unimportant stuff.
I'm not sure anyone of importance is anywhere near acting in a frenzy.

Skripal poisoning was a false-flag effort to act against Russia?  All that happened was a reciprocal removal of diplomats.  Perfectly proportional.

Syrian army gas attacks were a conspiracy to act against Assad?  A couple of military targets got bombed, with virtually no casualties.  Nobody calling for an invasion.  Perfectly proportional.

Russian election meddling was a hoax to effect action against Russia?  No, there's solid evidence, and all Russia has suffered is some sanctions. No military response. Perfectly proportional.

Where it counts, there is no Russophobia.  There is a recognition, though, that Putin is geopolitically ambitious.  Proportionate responses are called for to dissuade him from disrupting important alliances.

There is no Russophobia here, not where it matters.

[magnamentis]

most such public outrages are hypocritical and mostly serve to make people feel better by diverting from their own daily fails and bad things they do.

pointing at others has always been the first choice to suppress own failures and misbehaviours, on personal as well as ethnical, religious and political spheres of influence level

[magnamentis]

"Putin is geopolitically ambitious"

OMG What an insidious devious manipulator! This cannot stand!
Putin should be Burnt at the stake like the evil servant of Satan which he is.

This is all very sad, worrying, troublesome and dangerous. Legitimate, sincere, inquisitive and equitable voices tossed to the margins, and defamed, while spoofers, quacks, carpetbaggers and blackguards take center stage. One wonders how sober historians will judge this lunacy.

Anderson Cooper 360°
‏Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian Studies, spars with fellow panelist @MaxBoot, saying Trump carried out an act of diplomacy in Putin summit.

"I think Mr. Boot would have been happy if Trump had water boarded Putin at the summit and made him confess." VIDEO
https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1024107816347295745

i cannot agree, neither with the proposed consequences that are under all circumstance to stay "off limits" and then there were many before putin and we have to seriously balance our judgment, last but not least the question whether things were better or worse before putin.

under jeltzin there was more freedom but a lot more chaos and uncontrolled corruption. of course there is still corruption but not only in russia, our self flattering western governments and related industries are corrupt to the bones as well only that they established laws in a way that those with huge resources and capacities to defend themselves in lawsuits can elegantly steer their monster vessels through very well charted waters with all kind of warning signs at each bend and shallow and a bunch of pilots/guides for each very small gridded area.

[Martin Gisser]

to be sure i got this right sidd, that's saying that adam carter is a fake nym and his "reports" and expertise is bs? thanks.

I am so unsurprised...
+1

[Neven]

More from the Russian agent (please ignore, go shopping, and of course, be afraid, be very afraid):

[jacksmith4tx]

Don't worry, be happy!
The deep state is sowing fear but sprinkled in with the hype are some genuine threats. Funny that Russia only ranks #7.
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-2ffd3215-b632-4780-b5cf-97bf3a846359.html

Axios has been interviewing people who have been trusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets.
    The group includes seven former directors or deputy directors of the CIA, two former U.S. intelligence chiefs, a former Secretary of Homeland Security, two White House homeland security advisers, and a former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

We wanted to know, in this time of acute geopolitical stress, which global threat worried them most, and which threats they thought weren’t getting the attention they deserved.

#1
When we asked America’s foremost intelligence experts what keeps them up at night, one response came up over and over again: the risk of a crippling cyberattack. (My favorite nightmare is someone encrypts the CIA, FBI, treasury department and federal reserve banks and deletes the code to unlock it).
#2
United States, divided (civil war?)
#3
Pakistan: The threat of a nuclear-armed terrorist state
Pakistan has the world's 5th largest population, 5th largest military and 6th largest nuclear arsenal. The danger begins with a dysfunctional economy and a rapidly growing population of young people without education or job prospects.
#4
China: Greatest rival, growing threat
#5
Climate change: A rising threat
"Half of the world’s population will face water shortages by 2035, according to the U.N. More than 30 countries — half of which are in the Mideast — will experience extreme water stress by 2035."
"More than a third of the earth’s soil, which produces 95% of the world’s food supply, is already degraded, and that degradation will accelerate over the next 20 years, as the world’s population increases. Soil degradation is already occurring at rates as much as 40 times faster than new soil formation."
#6
Pandemics: A fast-spreading threat
#7
Russia: An old threat, made new
#8
Terrorism: An urgent, shifting threat
#9
North Korea: A threat in hibernation
#10
Artificial intelligence: The threat of the future
    Once a country possesses a machine with human intelligence, it could have the capability to keep all rivals at bay in perpetuity. Only China has made this a national strategic goal and put enormous sums behind getting there.

[sidd]

"The group includes seven former directors or deputy directors of the CIA, two former U.S. intelligence chiefs, a former Secretary of Homeland Security, two White House homeland security advisers, and a former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center."

And I should believe these liars because ...?

sidd

[Neven]

Because Trump!

If your brain doesn't automatically short-circuit when reading or hearing that word, you should go see a doctor.

[Susan Anderson]

If you believe in the Trumpian "deep state" you have bought the troll goods on sale. These are the true "deep state" believers. Do you really want to associate with "QAnon" and the likes of 4Chan/Cernowich https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/mike-cernovich? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/30/qanon-4chan-rightwing-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump

News on the Portland "Patriot Prayer" riot:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/patriot-prayer-portland-riot_us_5b383170e4b0f3c221a17a8f

and

Josh Marshall (@joshtpm)
    8/3/18, 9:15 PM
    Holy Crap, This Second Ted Cruz Ad Is Even More Absurd Than the One From this Afternoon. pic.twitter.com/2kBQp5vALD
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1025565911539957760/video/1

I'd agree that we progressives/liberals (not neoliberals) didn't used to care for the FBI et al., but at this point they're the only ones that have the knowledge and ability to bring down the fascist Trumpian state and the likes of the "Proud Boys" with their armaments and violence. Their allies/enablers and other sorts of kleptocrats have kidnapped both houses of Congress, local authorities, and much of the judiciary and local authorities, especially in red states. They also have control of much of the voting apparatus and quite a few tricks and techniques for suppressing/intimidating/stealing the vote to keep their minority in power.